Are there any plans to fix GAC? When will winning carry the weight it should? Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.What this creates is the ability for someone to be a punk and block you intentionally from ranking by setting a defense that is impossible to clear even if they lose. This would never happen in a legitimate competitive set-up. Nobody should be able to intentionally lose to punish another team.

"Kyno;c-2202040" wrote:"GIJippo;c-2201968" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2201876" wrote:So @GIJippo, for the sake of argument, do you think someone who wins each and every one of their 12 matches by higher GP tiebreak after neither player attacks should rank above someone who wins 11 matches comfortably but then loses 1 match by a single banner? Nope. That player should have a record of 0-0-12. Ties don't count as a win or loss where adults set things up. Thanks for bringing up that irrationality as well.That is not a tie counting as a win, it's a win counting as a win. They win by the rules of engagement, so not irrational, actually quite logical.How would you measure 2 players who never face each other and face different calibers of players?Logic would dictate that you use metrics from the battle since not all wins are created equal. Unless you think the quoted situation makes a player better than the other due to calling all wins equal (which seems a little irrational). No, if the score ends in a tie it's a tie and it isn't counted as a win nor a loss. That's the price you pay for not participating. It's also the price you pay for being unable to manufacture a winner. Not sure how you are reading my comment but it seems like you are trying to find an argument for the same of arguing. You don't position people who don't participate in with people who do. It's among the most remedial quality controls of a competitive environment.

"GIJippo;d-238871" wrote:Are there any plans to fix GAC? When will winning carry the weight it should? Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.D1 college football says hi

"GIJippo;c-2201848" wrote:"Waqui;c-2201843" wrote:You're ranked by championship score - disregarding how you scored it. Completing more feats could make up for winning fewer rounds or battles. You may not like it but how is that ranking irrational?If you want to make sure that you're able to clear your opponent's defenses save enough for your offense. I'm not asking for help on how to make sure I clear the defense. Then why do you complain about not being able to clear your opponents' defense?If you want a higher score and rank clear their defenses. It's quite simple, really. No, I don't like it and yes it is irrational. It's irrational for the same reason no other competitive structure offers a path to ranking above others who are undefeated when you have LOST. Do you understand this? Yes, it's "the way it is". And "the way it is" is stupid, hence the post. Thanks.I understand that you feel you should rank higher. However, at the same time you don't feel the need to score more championship points - the metric by which you are ranked. That's not exactly rational thinking.

"GIJippo;c-2202044" wrote:"Kyno;c-2202040" wrote:"GIJippo;c-2201968" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2201876" wrote:So @GIJippo, for the sake of argument, do you think someone who wins each and every one of their 12 matches by higher GP tiebreak after neither player attacks should rank above someone who wins 11 matches comfortably but then loses 1 match by a single banner? Nope. That player should have a record of 0-0-12. Ties don't count as a win or loss where adults set things up. Thanks for bringing up that irrationality as well.That is not a tie counting as a win, it's a win counting as a win. They win by the rules of engagement, so not irrational, actually quite logical.How would you measure 2 players who never face each other and face different calibers of players?Logic would dictate that you use metrics from the battle since not all wins are created equal. Unless you think the quoted situation makes a player better than the other due to calling all wins equal (which seems a little irrational). No, if the score ends in a tie it's a tie and it isn't counted as a win nor a loss. That's the price you pay for not participating. It's also the price you pay for being unable to manufacture a winner. Not sure how you are reading my comment but it seems like you are trying to find an argument for the same of arguing. You don't position people who don't participate in with people who do. It's among the most remedial quality controls of a competitive environment.Did you ever hear of tiebreakers? GAC only operates with wins and losses. All ties are broken for the sake of matching players within a GA (within a group of 8). A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).

It's pretty clear that scoring system is pretty terrible. Someone mentioned college football. Can you imagine if the rankings and championship were determined by the total number of points you scored + a certain number of bonus points for each win? That would be ludicrous. The two clear problems are 1) playing with and/or against a strong defense is going to cost you offensive banners and 2) records aren't factored into matchmaking to make the top of the leaderboard face off against each other. The second one is a fairly easy fix IMO. The first not so much. How do you reward a strong defense without just gifting points to people who face an opponent who doesn't attack, which is fairly common? My personal opinion is awarding banners for margin of victory instead of total offensive banners, with a cap so that there is a max score that doesn't give those with an easy matchup too much of an advantage.

GAC ranking is irrational | EA Forums

GIJippo
4 years ago
"Kyno;c-2202040" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2201968" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2201876" wrote:
So @GIJippo, for the sake of argument, do you think someone who wins each and every one of their 12 matches by higher GP tiebreak after neither player attacks should rank above someone who wins 11 matches comfortably but then loses 1 match by a single banner?

Nope. That player should have a record of 0-0-12. Ties don't count as a win or loss where adults set things up. Thanks for bringing up that irrationality as well.

That is not a tie counting as a win, it's a win counting as a win. They win by the rules of engagement, so not irrational, actually quite logical.

How would you measure 2 players who never face each other and face different calibers of players?

Logic would dictate that you use metrics from the battle since not all wins are created equal.

Unless you think the quoted situation makes a player better than the other due to calling all wins equal (which seems a little irrational).

No, if the score ends in a tie it's a tie and it isn't counted as a win nor a loss. That's the price you pay for not participating. It's also the price you pay for being unable to manufacture a winner. Not sure how you are reading my comment but it seems like you are trying to find an argument for the same of arguing. You don't position people who don't participate in with people who do. It's among the most remedial quality controls of a competitive environment.
TheSithVicious
4 years ago
"GIJippo;d-238871" wrote:
Are there any plans to fix GAC? When will winning carry the weight it should? Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.

D1 college football says hi
Waquira
4 years ago
"GIJippo;c-2201848" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2201843" wrote:
You're ranked by championship score - disregarding how you scored it. Completing more feats could make up for winning fewer rounds or battles. You may not like it but how is that ranking irrational?

If you want to make sure that you're able to clear your opponent's defenses save enough for your offense.

I'm not asking for help on how to make sure I clear the defense.

Then why do you complain about not being able to clear your opponents' defense?
If you want a higher score and rank clear their defenses. It's quite simple, really.

No, I don't like it and yes it is irrational. It's irrational for the same reason no other competitive structure offers a path to ranking above others who are undefeated when you have LOST. Do you understand this? Yes, it's "the way it is". And "the way it is" is stupid, hence the post. Thanks.

I understand that you feel you should rank higher. However, at the same time you don't feel the need to score more championship points - the metric by which you are ranked. That's not exactly rational thinking.
Waquira
4 years ago
"GIJippo;c-2202044" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2202040" wrote:

"GIJippo;c-2201968" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2201876" wrote:
So @GIJippo, for the sake of argument, do you think someone who wins each and every one of their 12 matches by higher GP tiebreak after neither player attacks should rank above someone who wins 11 matches comfortably but then loses 1 match by a single banner?

Nope. That player should have a record of 0-0-12. Ties don't count as a win or loss where adults set things up. Thanks for bringing up that irrationality as well.

That is not a tie counting as a win, it's a win counting as a win. They win by the rules of engagement, so not irrational, actually quite logical.

How would you measure 2 players who never face each other and face different calibers of players?

Logic would dictate that you use metrics from the battle since not all wins are created equal.

Unless you think the quoted situation makes a player better than the other due to calling all wins equal (which seems a little irrational).

No, if the score ends in a tie it's a tie and it isn't counted as a win nor a loss. That's the price you pay for not participating. It's also the price you pay for being unable to manufacture a winner. Not sure how you are reading my comment but it seems like you are trying to find an argument for the same of arguing. You don't position people who don't participate in with people who do. It's among the most remedial quality controls of a competitive environment.

Did you ever hear of tiebreakers? GAC only operates with wins and losses. All ties are broken for the sake of matching players within a GA (within a group of 8). A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).
BTTripleZero
4 years ago
It's pretty clear that scoring system is pretty terrible. Someone mentioned college football. Can you imagine if the rankings and championship were determined by the total number of points you scored + a certain number of bonus points for each win? That would be ludicrous.

The two clear problems are 1) playing with and/or against a strong defense is going to cost you offensive banners and 2) records aren't factored into matchmaking to make the top of the leaderboard face off against each other.

The second one is a fairly easy fix IMO. The first not so much. How do you reward a strong defense without just gifting points to people who face an opponent who doesn't attack, which is fairly common? My personal opinion is awarding banners for margin of victory instead of total offensive banners, with a cap so that there is a max score that doesn't give those with an easy matchup too much of an advantage.
TheSithVicious
4 years ago
"Bulldog1205;c-2202177" wrote:
It's pretty clear that scoring system is pretty terrible. Someone mentioned college football. Can you imagine if the rankings and championship were determined by the total number of points you scored + a certain number of bonus points for each win? That would be ludicrous.

Kind of does, which is why I mentioned it. Voters can’t watch every game so look at the box scores. Good teams run up the score against bad teams to move up the rankings and if #7 barely loses to #8, they will likely drop out of top 10.
That being said, it is what it is. I don’t see how it matters to the average player the way the rewards are structured. You need a GAC focused roster to worry about a top spot finish. So, eh.
BTTripleZero
4 years ago
"Waqui;c-2202289" wrote:
"Hortus;c-2202217" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2202115" wrote:
A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).

Yeah, a win is a win... yet somehow in the GAC many wins and loses are different, with value often controlled not by you but by your opponent. And that's exactly the point which TS is trying to made:

Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.

Yes, you score and rank partly depends on your opponents and their strategies. Changing the scoring system won't change this fact. We're simply too many participants to have a round-Robin style tournament where we all battle each other one at a time.

No, but we could at least get a little bit closer, right? It's silly to finish GAC with a thousand undefeated accounts.
Waquira
4 years ago
"Bulldog1205;c-2202740" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2202289" wrote:
"Hortus;c-2202217" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2202115" wrote:
A win is a win disregarding whether it was won bye tiebreaker or not - and that's common in competitive sports (/environments).

Yeah, a win is a win... yet somehow in the GAC many wins and loses are different, with value often controlled not by you but by your opponent. And that's exactly the point which TS is trying to made:

Someone with one loss should never rank higher than someone with zero losses no matter how many banners.

Yes, you score and rank partly depends on your opponents and their strategies. Changing the scoring system won't change this fact. We're simply too many participants to have a round-Robin style tournament where we all battle each other one at a time.

No, but we could at least get a little bit closer, right? It's silly to finish GAC with a thousand undefeated accounts.

Why is it a goal for you to reduce the number of undefeated accounts?

If throughout the season you have the top of the leader boards face off against each other like you suggested you will reduce the number of undefeated accounts, yes, but a player with a 10-2 record who won the 10 first rounds will have much harder match-ups than a player who lost the first 2 followed by 10 wins. Seems silly to me.

Regarding you previous comment:

Awarding championship score based on winning margin instead of banners scored? Did you think your suggestion through? Why should a full clear win by 1 banner award less championship score than a full clear win where your opponent didn't attack? In both cases the winners accomplished the exact same things: a win and a full clear. Also, how much championship points do you suggest the losing player should be awarded? With the current system the losing player still scores championship points according to the accomplishment. A full clear loss is awarded much more championship points than a loss with no (or low) offensive banners. What would you suggest?
BTTripleZero
4 years ago
"Waqui;c-2202879" wrote:

Why is it a goal for you to reduce the number of undefeated accounts?

If throughout the season you have the top of the leader boards face off against each other like you suggested you will reduce the number of undefeated accounts, yes, but a player with a 10-2 record who won the 10 first rounds will have much harder match-ups than a player who lost the first 2 followed by 10 wins. Seems silly to me.

Regarding you previous comment:

Awarding championship score based on winning margin instead of banners scored? Did you think your suggestion through? Why should a full clear win by 1 banner award less championship score than a full clear win where your opponent didn't attack? In both cases the winners accomplished the exact same things: a win and a full clear. Also, how much championship points do you suggest the losing player should be awarded? With the current system the losing player still scores championship points according to the accomplishment. A full clear loss is awarded much more championship points than a loss with no (or low) offensive banners. What would you suggest?

It's called a championship, so yes, the goal IMO should absolutely be to have 1 undefeated account at the end. Now, you can only guarantee 1 undefeated account for every 4096 players, but that seems acceptable to me. Going undefeated is a true accomplishment there.

As for the 10-2 record comparison, that's a simple solution. Group people up based on their record, and have a better 1st - 8th reward pool for those with more wins. But even if you don't, is it really THAT big of a deal? Seems like a small price to pay for more even matchmaking and determining a true champion.

You can still grant GAC points to losing players based on how much they clear. That doesn't have to change. Obviously the exact point values in all of this would be rescaled.

Yes, determining points based on MOV still has problems. I mentioned the free points for someone not attacking in the initial suggestion. But IMO it's a better solution, because you aren't penalized for playing a specific way. You aren't locked out of the top of the leaderboard because someone decided to go 100% defense just to try and screw you.

Although to be honest, why have GAC points at all? You don't need it if you match people up more tournament style as suggested above. Instead of points for winning battles in game and completing feats just reward GAC currency directly. Give out season rewards based on final record. There is no need for a complicated scoring system that just makes things worse.
Rath_Tarr0
4 years ago
Finding "the best" player in a division let alone in all of SWGoH is impossible because you would have to match rosters of very different power levels. Higher GP does not equal better player.

And even if you could, with a hundred thousand or more players in a division, it would take months of matches and would end up eliminating good players who missed even a single match for real life reasons.

So CG settled for month-long GACs, matching by roster strength to give everyone many chances to prove themselves.